Left-wing authoritarianism exists and is a key predictor of psychological and behavioral outcomes

[Angry Floof]

I think I see what the problem is. AF appears to have decided that "authoritarian" refers only to the power to enforce obedience to the orders of a specific person, of an authority figure. So censorship can't possibly be an exercise of authoritarianism unless there's a figure to attribute the authority to. The power of a mob and the power of an ideology need not apply, even when the mob and the ideology give people orders and enforce obedience. She has a new idiosyncratic definition in mind and woe to anyone who won't go along with it. Anyone who assumes the meaning of "authoritarian" still has something to do with the meaning of "authority" is to be accused of disingenuousness, of making up new definitions, of dishonesty, of being in the pay of villains, of lying.

Nope. Try again.

How would you recognize someone who is not an obedience machine and does not want their fellow human beings to be obedience machines, either?

You're gonna see "they want to control us" everywhere. I don't.

What is it exactly that you want for the world? What I want is the peace and well being of our tribe of seven billion, and that is well within our ability to create. We are more than capable of meeting the needs of every human on the planet without resorting to authoritarian control.

But if you have never held any kind of mental framework of the world that doesn't rely on authoritarian control of either a small number of people or a king or whatever you think is this "mob" controlling you, then how would you be able to envision a world where no authoritarian control is needed?

Is that what this is about? Serious question. Do you think a world without any authoritarian control is possible? If not, then I can see why anyone holding views in opposition to yours would seem like a threat. If you can't identify with every human, then yeah, you're gonna be scared of Other.

I guess my world view is not scared of anyone. I am scared of right wing religious abusive-daddy-figure ideologies becoming mainstream. But the people within that group are still people and there is no way I would support their being harmed or imprisoned for their views. It's their behavior that is concerning, not just that they hold different views from mine. That is a right wing authoritarian mindset. "They don't worship our god so they must be evil" kind of shit. I don't hold a world view that sees you or anyone else in that Other-Enemy light.

 

[Bomb#20]

First of all, the NRA dismantled itself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zj4JMFlK8vY&ab_channel=NRA

"Tell Sen. Manchin VOTE NO on Biden's ATF Nominee David Chipman"​

https://thehill.com/business-a-lobb...p-up-lobbying-campaign-against-biden-atf-pick

"The NRA has been taking a different approach, with a multi-million dollar ad campaign in senators’ home states over the past two months. The group said it will spend another $500,000 in the coming week on ads, mailers and in-person town halls to keep the pressure on moderate senators.

“Biden nominated radical gun control lobbyist David Chipman to lead ATF, but Sen. Joe Manchin can stop him,” a West Virginia NRA ad says. “Contact Joe Manchin’s office today and tell Joe to vote against Chipman’s nomination and reject President Biden’s extreme gun control agenda.”"​

Yep, sure looks dismantled to me.

Second, I am not a right wing authoritarian follower, so my world view does not rely on top down authoritarian control of everything.

And for whatever mysterious reason, you're arguing as though "top down" were one of the criteria for "the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience".

I support democracy and all the checks and balances of power possible.

If that were true then you wouldn't support dismantling the NRA. People who oppose your agenda being allowed to organize, speak out, and petition the government for redress of their grievances, is a check and balance on power.

Our democracy exists because some founders recognized that we not only do not need a king, but it is imperative that we do not have a king.

That is ahistorical nonsense. Have you even read the Declaration of Independence? It's explicit that the problem wasn't that George III was a king, but that he was a bad king. You do know that Norway, Sweden, Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands all have kings, don't you? Doesn't stop them from being democracies.

Maybe right wing authoritarian followers can't fathom a world without a king?

You're now insinuating that I'm a "right wing authoritarian follower" and want a king; I take it you deduced this from observing me taking the First Amendment seriously.

When the orders you give and the obedience you enforce are making others stop following the previous established convention, and instead have to follow whatever new convention you decide to establish for them, that magically makes your exercise of authority over them not count as authoritarian. Got it.

Except that is not how I think at all and does not in the least represent my world view. This is a cartoon in your own head.

You're the one who wrote: 'Those left wing "authoritarians" are anti-establishment and anti-convention!!111!! Sooo authoritarian!!!!1!!!'. Behind your sarcasm, you were illogically proposing that simply opposing the current system is sufficient to settle the question of whether you're authoritarian. If that's not how you think then why did you write it? And if your world view doesn't include simply replacing existing authority with your own side's authority then why are you labeling your political opponents "terrorists" and attacking their First Amendment rights?

Once again, I'm not a right wing authoritarian follower. I do NOT propose or support that kind of top down authority driven social structure that you guys do.

"You guys". Lovely. Good luck quoting me saying anything half as authoritarian as the stuff you write. You can keep trumping up baseless accusations against me to your heart's content but it doesn't reflect well on your intellectual honesty or on the strength of your case.

I.e., respect the human rights of whichever people you care about. Those whose human rights you violate with impunity must have had it coming, because they were so powerful. Got it.

And whose human rights would I violate in your cartoon world?

NRA members', obviously. And by extrapolation, probably those of anyone else you perceive as being a serious threat to your side winning whichever political conflicts you care deeply about. Let's face it; you didn't pick the NRA for dismantling because they oppose you and they participate in the democratic struggle for power in the legislature, did you? Lots of outfits do that. You picked the NRA because they're really good at it.

And again, that us vs. them framework is a right wing authoritarian mental prison that I do not hold.

"All those poor politically powerful people and their wealthy backers behind the scenes!"
"I'm guessing some rich right wing organization paid them big bucks"
"ordinary citizens fighting back against corrupt power and rich people"​

Yep, no us vs. them framework on display there.

And if you do, then I can see how you would insist that everyone else also maintains such a framework and why you'd be scared of Them doing the same to your group as you would do to the world. Or rather, as you would have your king do to the world.

I'm a republican. It doesn't bother me if the Belgians want to have kings, but they're a useless anachronism in the modern world.

 

[Angry Floof]

Bomb, if I support top down authoritarian control, who is at the top? How many? You haven't really made clear who exactly would serve as my "authority" that I would unquestioningly support in forcing you to do things.

"All those poor politically powerful people and their wealthy backers behind the scenes!"
"I'm guessing some rich right wing organization paid them big bucks"
"ordinary citizens fighting back against corrupt power and rich people"​

Yep, no us vs. them framework on display there.

That is about recognizing power and where it is and how it influences all of us. Power has a strong tendency to corrupt. Don't you know that by now? Is power imbalance not a factor in your world view? Might is not right, but anyone who holds might inevitably will abuse it in some way if not held in check by wider society via checks and balances that reflect a grownup understanding of how we all operate and how we are all susceptible to the pitfalls of any level of power we might hold.

Corporations poison people and ravage the environment with abandon if the rest of us allow them to. Our human minds can find ways to justify doing just about anything that benefits us and makes us feel good so we can continue believing we are good people in spite of just having spent millions on a PR campaign to convince the world that a whole country of humans have no human right to clean water. The billions in profits are worth that expense. That corporation is not bloody likely to grow a conscience on its own.

I want controls that do not allow me or people I like to abuse any power or wealth I or they might gain in the future any more than I want anyone else to be allowed to abuse power and wealth.

Also, rich people and politicians are not harmed by anything I say and I don't call for violence against them anyway, even if such a call could ever possibly amount to anything nearly as real and harmful as what happens to not so powerful people when someone powerful calls for violence and prejudice against them. The rich and powerful are not cowering victims with no recourse or aid if someone defames them unfairly. They also have a ton of extrajudicial options for shutting people up if that's something their principles (or lack thereof) allow them to do.

Hold power accountable. If your world view ignores this principle, your ideology will always serve as a potential "might is right" ideology.

I support a democratic system of checks and balances against corruption.

 

[Bomb#20]

Bomb#20 seems to think that a Communist cannot fit the right-wing-authoritarian profile because Communism is about left-wing policies rather than right-wing ones. But look at what the RWA profile consists of: support of an existing system no matter what that system is.

In the first place, if there's repeatable evidence for a specific psychological profile that goes in for support of an existing system no matter what that system is, then "RWA" is a misnomer for it. The "RW" part was included because the one who coined the term was stereotyping existing systems as right-wing, not because there's anything specifically right-wing about favoring what exists irrespective of whether the existing system is itself right-wing.

And in the second place, it's perfectly normal for somebody who's very right-wing and very authoritarian to want to overthrow the existing system and replace it with some other authority more to his liking. Martin Luther comes to mind, and the Ayatollah Khomeini...

Far-left and far-right ideologies (e.g., communism and fascism) are similarly authoritarian in their structure—both exert powerful pressures to maintain discipline among members, advocate aggressive and censorious means of stifling opposition, believe in top-down, absolutist lead- ership, and so on. The content of communism, however, is arguably humanitarian and anti-authoritarian (e.g., the ideological aim is to remove economic inequities and take care of individuals per the doctrine, “from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs”). In contrast, the content of fascism is wholly authoritarian. If this is so, individuals may initially be drawn to far-left and far-right authoritarianism for different reasons (e.g., with the hopes of eliminating injustices vs. exacerbating them), even if they ultimately act in similarly authoritarian manners (Rokeach, 1960; see also Conway et al., 2020).

Oh come on. That's blatant special-pleading; all it shows is that the author is sympathetic to communism. Communism and Nazism are the same ideology: the problems of society are caused by a parasitical minority group, so we need to get rid of that minority, and we mustn't let little things like rule of law and human rights stand in our way. The only difference is the arbitrary detail of which minority group they blame and which idiotic evidence-free theory tells them that's who to blame. Does this guy seriously imagine the Nazis didn't see themselves as eliminating injustice and protecting the German people from predation by the Jews?

... Accordingly, left-wing authoritarians may come to believe that authoritarianism is “a necessary evil,” rather than an end unto itself.

Yeah, and this distinguishes them from right-wing authoritarians, how? You think for them it's authority and exacerbating injustices as ends in themselves? Seriously? Funny story about that. You know how Mussolini came to invent Fascism? He started out as a hard-core Socialist -- he rose to the position of editor of the Italian Socialist Party newspaper. Then the Party kicked him out. You know what they kicked him out for? He was kicked out for opposing German imperialism -- opposing it so strongly that he endorsed Italy joining the Allies in WW1.

A psychologist whose theory is that his political opponents are cartoon villains is a pretty poor psychologist.

 

[Bomb#20]

I wish to note a LWA joke.

Two revolutionaries were conversing.
R1: "Come the revolution, we will have strawberries and cream."
R2: "But I don't like strawberries and cream."
R1: "Come the revolution, we will have strawberries and cream, and you will enjoy it."

Heh. Reminds me of a Dave Allen joke:

Rev. Ian Paisley: On the Day of Judgment, ye sinners will be cast into the pit of everlasting fire, and there will be great gnashing of teeth!

Old guy in audience: I don't have teeth.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Teeth will be provided!​

 

[Bomb#20]

au·thor·i·ty
noun
1.
the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience.
"he had absolute authority over his subordinates"
...
I think I see what the problem is. AF appears to have decided that "authoritarian" refers only to the power to enforce obedience to the orders of a specific person, of an authority figure. So censorship can't possibly be an exercise of authoritarianism unless there's a figure to attribute the authority to. The power of a mob and the power of an ideology need not apply...

And for whatever mysterious reason, you're arguing as though "top down" were one of the criteria for "the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience".

Bomb, if I support top down authoritarian control, who is at the top? How many? You haven't really made clear who exactly would serve as my "authority" that I would unquestioningly support in forcing you to do things.

Where the heck am I supposed to have said you support >>>"top down"<<< authoritarian control? You are in the grip of an idee fixe. You equate "authoritarian" with "top down" with such unshakeable certainty that even when I repeatedly point out your error, you just ignore what I actually say and instead make believe that I'm accusing you of following an authority figure. You appear to be jonesing for the right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience to yourself, and to some grass-roots movement of like-minded authority-wannabes. How the devil do you figure in order to be an authoritarian you'd need somebody else to unquestioningly support? You're evidently perfectly capable and willing to assume the office yourself -- to decide on your own or in consensus with your friends what it is you want to force other people to do.

You might as well argue Trump wasn't an authoritarian because nobody served as his authority that he would unquestioningly support.

That is about recognizing power and where it is and how it influences all of us. Power has a strong tendency to corrupt. Don't you know that by now?

Duh! That is why I want you not to be within a lightyear of having the power to muzzle your political opponents.

Is power imbalance not a factor in your world view? Might is not right, but anyone who holds might inevitably will abuse it in some way if not held in check by wider society via checks and balances that reflect a grownup understanding of how we all operate and how we are all susceptible to the pitfalls of any level of power we might hold.

Exactly. And the NRA membership's First Amendment right to politically agitate against your goals is one of those checks that wider society uses to hold in check the power ambitions of those who share your goals.

I want controls that do not allow me or people I like to abuse any power or wealth I or they might gain in the future any more than I want anyone else to be allowed to abuse power and wealth.

Pious words. But the fact that you want to dismantle the NRA implies that you would not be an unbiased judge of whether you were abusing power.

Also, rich people and politicians are not harmed by anything I say

And? Marcos didn't stop being an authoritarian just because he was packed off into exile where he was no longer in a position to violate people's rights.

 

[Angry Floof]

Answer my question about what you think is the source of my power or I shall wield my mighty LWA power to block your access to all of the internet except for Baby Shark videos.

I don't give a shit about the NRA. I thought it was on its last legs a couple of years ago due to eating itself from within, but I haven't paid much attention since then. They are a white supremacist political organization and I hope it does die a ridiculously stupid and undignified death, as all white supremacist groups deserve. I don't care what else you have to say about the poor, cowering NRA or their gun intimidation efforts.

But again, if I'm such an authoritarian, how do you square the fact that I support checks and balances that prevent corruption of power? I don't believe anyone's "side" should have dictatorial power over everyone else. Why is this rocket science? Is it because I say mean things over the internet about Republicans and other right wing authoritarian followers? Does that trigger right wing fear aggression and now I loom as a communist threat in your mind?

 

[lpetrich]

Communism and Nazism are the same ideology: the problems of society are caused by a parasitical minority group, so we need to get rid of that minority, and we mustn't let little things like rule of law and human rights stand in our way. ...

That's hardly the core of those ideologies.

Communism is about the working class and Nazism is about German national greatness. Very different.

 

[Trausti]

Communism and Nazism are the same ideology: the problems of society are caused by a parasitical minority group, so we need to get rid of that minority, and we mustn't let little things like rule of law and human rights stand in our way. ...

That's hardly the core of those ideologies.

Communism is about the working class and Nazism is about German national greatness. Very different.

They both were about destroying the present order, denying human nature, and creating utopia. And neither had any qualms about using violence to get there.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTJQXKUR6mM[/YOUTUBE]

 

[lpetrich]

Communism is about the working class and Nazism is about German national greatness. Very different.

They both were about destroying the present order, denying human nature, and creating utopia.

How so?

 

[WAB]

Answer my question about what you think is the source of my power or I shall wield my mighty LWA power to block your access to all of the internet except for Baby Shark videos.

I don't give a shit about the NRA. I thought it was on its last legs a couple of years ago due to eating itself from within, but I haven't paid much attention since then. They are a white supremacist political organization and I hope it does die a ridiculously stupid and undignified death, as all white supremacist groups deserve. I don't care what else you have to say about the poor, cowering NRA or their gun intimidation efforts.

But again, if I'm such an authoritarian, how do you square the fact that I support checks and balances that prevent corruption of power? I don't believe anyone's "side" should have dictatorial power over everyone else. Why is this rocket science? Is it because I say mean things over the internet about Republicans and other right wing authoritarian followers? Does that trigger right wing fear aggression and now I loom as a communist threat in your mind?

Floof, suffice it to say, you ain't a threat to anyone.

 

[Angry Floof]

Answer my question about what you think is the source of my power or I shall wield my mighty LWA power to block your access to all of the internet except for Baby Shark videos.

I don't give a shit about the NRA. I thought it was on its last legs a couple of years ago due to eating itself from within, but I haven't paid much attention since then. They are a white supremacist political organization and I hope it does die a ridiculously stupid and undignified death, as all white supremacist groups deserve. I don't care what else you have to say about the poor, cowering NRA or their gun intimidation efforts.

But again, if I'm such an authoritarian, how do you square the fact that I support checks and balances that prevent corruption of power? I don't believe anyone's "side" should have dictatorial power over everyone else. Why is this rocket science? Is it because I say mean things over the internet about Republicans and other right wing authoritarian followers? Does that trigger right wing fear aggression and now I loom as a communist threat in your mind?

Floof, suffice it to say, you ain't a threat to anyone.

Exactly! Thank you. I don't know why I loom so large and powerful in some people's minds. That was the point of my post, or one point at least.

 

[WAB]

Answer my question about what you think is the source of my power or I shall wield my mighty LWA power to block your access to all of the internet except for Baby Shark videos.

I don't give a shit about the NRA. I thought it was on its last legs a couple of years ago due to eating itself from within, but I haven't paid much attention since then. They are a white supremacist political organization and I hope it does die a ridiculously stupid and undignified death, as all white supremacist groups deserve. I don't care what else you have to say about the poor, cowering NRA or their gun intimidation efforts.

But again, if I'm such an authoritarian, how do you square the fact that I support checks and balances that prevent corruption of power? I don't believe anyone's "side" should have dictatorial power over everyone else. Why is this rocket science? Is it because I say mean things over the internet about Republicans and other right wing authoritarian followers? Does that trigger right wing fear aggression and now I loom as a communist threat in your mind?

Floof, suffice it to say, you ain't a threat to anyone.

Exactly! Thank you. I don't know why I loom so large and powerful in some people's minds. That was the point of my post, or one point at least.

Hint: you don't loom large in anyone's mind except for people you interact with in real life, ie: family, friends, colleagues.

You do NOT loom large in my mind, AF.

You're a nobody, just like me.

Relatively. You could be the Queen of England for all I know. But here, you're just Angry Floof. Or just plain angry.

 

[Bomb#20]

Communism and Nazism are the same ideology: the problems of society are caused by a parasitical minority group, so we need to get rid of that minority, and we mustn't let little things like rule of law and human rights stand in our way. ...

That's hardly the core of those ideologies.

Communism is about the working class and Nazism is about German national greatness. Very different.

Ingroups are like children: it's different when they're yours.

 

[Bomb#20]

Communism is free when it is democratic.

And it is not free when it is authoritarian.

The only remedy for authoritarianism is democracy.

You know the authoritarians when they bad mouth democracy and call the people a mob.

Have you read Thucydides? One of the events that triggered the Peloponnesian War was an incident in the 5th century BC, when one of the democratic city states allied with Athens voted to commit genocide. People from the majority ethnic group herded a minority ethnic group into a sports stadium, went up into the stands, and shot arrows down into the crowd, killing everyone there except a few who managed to hang themselves before they were shot.

 

[Bomb#20]

Answer my question about what you think is the source of my power or I shall <snip>

Where the heck am I supposed to have said you have power? While we're at it, where the heck did you show that everyone here you've called a "right wing authoritarian follower" has power?

 

[untermensche]

Communism is free when it is democratic.

And it is not free when it is authoritarian.

The only remedy for authoritarianism is democracy.

You know the authoritarians when they bad mouth democracy and call the people a mob.

Have you read Thucydides? One of the events that triggered the Peloponnesian War was an incident in the 5th century BC, when one of the democratic city states allied with Athens voted to commit genocide. People from the majority ethnic group herded a minority ethnic group into a sports stadium, went up into the stands, and shot arrows down into the crowd, killing everyone there except a few who managed to hang themselves before they were shot.

Who exactly voted on that?

 

[KeepTalking]

Thanks for the in-depth dive, lpetrich.

As to Communism and authoritarianism, look at the people who inhabit Communist regimes and who defend those regimes. They act very much like the right-wing sorts of authoritarians.

I found this very interesting. I mentioned China and the USSR as examples of LWA, given that communism is a left wing ideology. It does make sense, however, that once a communist regime is in power, nationalists in that country who then support that regime would be more correctly identified as RWAs.

 

[jab]

i like how they threw in "belief in science" as a key difference between left-wing and right-wing crazies. makes it sound like left-wing crazies have beliefs based in reality but still have an over-amplified sense of importance in those beliefs. while the right-wing crazies hold beliefs from fairy tale land with an over-amplified sense of importance in those beliefs.

There's a big difference between believing in science and believing you believe in science. What both LWAs and RWAs actually believe in is their own tribal loyalty oaths. Believing in science is something the left believes it's supposed to do, so of course if you survey them and ask if they believe in science they'll say "yes". Consequently, when RWAs think evolution is a lie they don't mind admitting they disagree with science; whereas when LWAs think nuclear power is more dangerous than other power sources they'll insist they're still "believing in science." Thinking you agree with science has only an incidental correlation with whether science agrees with you.

Good point. Didn't the anti-vax movement start as more of a left-wing thing?

it was a meld of left-wing organics, certain brands of right wing fundamentalist Christians, and right-wing libertarianism/ conspiracy theorists, in the Western World. There are also committed anti-vaxxers in other parts of the world.

 

[TomC]

Thanks for the in-depth dive, lpetrich.

As to Communism and authoritarianism, look at the people who inhabit Communist regimes and who defend those regimes. They act very much like the right-wing sorts of authoritarians.

I found this very interesting. I mentioned China and the USSR as examples of LWA, given that communism is a left wing ideology. It does make sense, however, that once a communist regime is in power, nationalists in that country who then support that regime would be more correctly identified as RWAs.

This is a good illustration of why I find words like left, right, liberal, conservative, and many similar no longer particularly useful in common discourse.
Tom